yeastar_get_queue_call_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states this is a read-only operation that does not join, transfer, or otherwise touch a call, which is critical safety-relevant behavior for a telephony tool. It could add more about freshness, error behavior, or output shape, but the essential non-mutating trait is clearly disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first defines what the tool returns, the second clarifies the read-only behavior and the input requirement. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only status tool without an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the data returned (waiting calls, in-progress calls, wait times), the read-only nature, and the necessary ID source. Slight gaps remain around wait-time units and exact return format, but these are minor for a tool this simple.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the exact source tool (yeastar_list_queues) for obtaining the ID, which goes beyond the generic 'from the corresponding list tool' schema text. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current live call state of a queue'), then names concrete data points: calls waiting, calls in progress, and wait times. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_queue or get_queue_agent_status by focusing on live call flow rather than configuration or agent status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: it requires an ID from yeastar_list_queues, which tells the agent exactly how to obtain valid input. It also signals the read-only context ('does not join, transfer, or otherwise touch any call'), implying it is for observation, not call control. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.